Intel Core 9 273PQE vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

The Intel Core 9 273PQE and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 are both 93rd-percentile desktop processors, yet they approach performance from opposite directions. The Core 9 273PQE, with a 12-core/24-thread configuration, leverages high clock speeds and a larger shared cache, while the Core Ultra 7 265 uses a 20-core/20-thread design on a newer process node. Benchmark results show a clear split: the Core 9 dominates in legacy Cinebench R20 tests and specific integer workloads, while the Ultra 7 wins the majority of modern multi-threaded and floating-point tasks. The data reveals a 13-to-4 win split in favor of the Ultra 7, but the magnitude of the Core 9’s victories in its chosen tests is substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation occurs in Cinebench R20, where the Core 9 273PQE delivers a landslide victory. In the multicore test, the Core 9 scores 16,459 against the Ultra 7’s 6,268, a delta of 162.6%. The single-core R20 result is nearly identical in margin, with the Core 9 at 2,323 versus 884 for the Ultra 7, a 162.8% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational gap in how the two processors handle this specific legacy workload.

However, the Cinebench R15 and R23 results tell a completely different story. In R15 multicore, the Ultra 7 wins with 4,255 points over the Core 9’s 3,950, a 7.2% margin. The R15 single-core test shows the same 7.2% delta, with the Ultra 7 at 600 and the Core 9 at 557. In R23, the pattern repeats: the Ultra 7 scores 42,216 multicore and 5,960 single-core, while the Core 9 manages 39,190 and 5,532 respectively. Again, the delta is exactly 7.2% in both cases, suggesting a consistent architectural efficiency advantage for the Ultra 7 in these newer Cinebench versions.

PassMark results further illustrate the split. The Core 9 273PQE wins data compression decisively, scoring 585,752 versus 522,983 for the Ultra 7, a 12% advantage. It also takes integer math with 164,629 points against 134,773, a 22.2% lead. These are compute-heavy, integer-oriented tasks where the Core 9’s high boost clock of 5.90 GHz plays a clear role.

The Ultra 7, conversely, dominates the remaining PassMark suite. Its most significant win is in floating-point math, where it scores 172,776 versus 125,546 for the Core 9, a 27.3% margin. It also excels in data encryption with 40,456 points against 29,636 (26.7% ahead), and in find prime numbers with 418 versus 198, a massive 52.6% advantage. Random string sorting goes to the Ultra 7 at 63,833 versus 53,167 (16.7% ahead), and extended instructions follow at 41,478 versus 38,743 (6.6% ahead). The Ultra 7 also wins the multithread test (49,682 vs 46,107), physics (2,923 vs 2,754), and single-thread (4,689 vs 4,573), with the latter two being closer 5.8% and 2.5% margins respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE has an average benchmark score of 66,099, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has an average of 64,640. The Core 9 sits 0.1% below its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, while the Ultra 7 sits 0.3% above its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads, whereas the Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core 9 relies on hyper-threading to reach 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the difference in their boost clock speeds?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz, which is higher than the Core Ultra 7 265’s boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core 9’s base clock is also higher at 3.40 GHz versus 2.40 GHz for the Ultra 7.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a larger shared L3 cache of 36 MB, compared to the 30 MB shared L3 cache on the Core Ultra 7 265. The Ultra 7, however, has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches at 192 KB and 3 MB per core, respectively, versus 80 KB and 2 MB per core on the Core 9.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, only the Intel Core 9 273PQE supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 does not have ECC support enabled.

Q: What is the difference in their TDP ratings?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has a TDP of 125 watts, while the Core Ultra 7 265 has a TDP of 65 watts. This indicates the Ultra 7 is designed for significantly lower power consumption.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Core 9 273PQE is based on Bartlett Lake architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel. It uses the Socket 1700 platform and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. In contrast, the Core Ultra 7 265 is part of the Core Ultra Series 2, using Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process fabricated by TSMC. It requires the newer Socket 1851 and supports only DDR5 memory.

The transistor count and die size reflect this manufacturing gap. The Ultra 7 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the Core 9’s transistor count and die size are not specified. The process node difference is stark: 3 nm versus 10 nm, which explains why the Ultra 7 achieves higher performance in many tests despite a lower boost clock.

Memory bandwidth also favors the Ultra 7, which has a rated bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Core 9. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Ultra 7’s exclusive use of DDR5 allows for higher throughput. The PCIe configurations differ as well, with the Ultra 7 offering 20 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Core 9 offers 16 Gen 5 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ between the two. The Core 9 includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Ultra 7 features Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. The Core 9’s ECC memory support is a notable feature absent on the Ultra 7. Both processors have locked multipliers and are classified as active desktop parts, but they belong to different socket ecosystems entirely.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of labor. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the better all-around processor for modern workloads, winning 13 out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its victories in Cinebench R15, R23, and the majority of PassMark tests indicate superior efficiency per clock and better handling of floating-point and encryption tasks. The 3 nm process and higher memory bandwidth give it an edge in sustained multi-threaded performance, as evidenced by its 42,216 score in Cinebench R23 multicore.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE, despite losing the overall count, wins the most lopsided contests. Its 162.6% and 162.8% victories in Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core respectively are not anomalies but signals of optimized performance for that specific benchmark generation. Its wins in data compression and integer math show it handles integer-heavy, compression-oriented tasks with exceptional speed, likely due to its 5.90 GHz boost clock and 36 MB L3 cache.

For users running legacy Cinebench R20 versions or integer-heavy data compression workloads, the Core 9 273PQE is the clear choice. For everything else — modern Cinebench versions, floating-point math, encryption, and general multithreaded productivity — the Core Ultra 7 265 delivers better results. The Ultra 7 also does so at a 65-watt TDP, less than half the Core 9’s 125-watt rating, though the Core 9’s launch MSRP is $589 and the Ultra 7’s is $394.

Specification Differences

The processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ultra 7 has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.90 GHz versus 5.30 GHz, both favoring the Core 9. TDP differs substantially at 125 watts versus 65 watts.

Socket compatibility is exclusive: Socket 1700 for the Core 9 and Socket 1851 for the Ultra 7. The process node is 10 nm for the Core 9, while the Ultra 7 uses 3 nm. Foundries differ, with Intel producing the Core 9 and TSMC producing the Ultra 7. The Ultra 7 has specified transistors of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the Core 9 has no such figures listed.

Cache hierarchies show the Core 9 with 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, plus 36 MB shared L3. The Ultra 7 has 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, with 30 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4/DDR5 for the Core 9 versus DDR5-only for the Ultra 7. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Core 9. PCIe lanes are 16 on the Core 9 versus 20 on the Ultra 7, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU.

Where Each One Wins

The Core 9 273PQE wins in four specific benchmark categories: Cinebench R20 multicore, Cinebench R20 single-core, PassMark data compression, and PassMark integer math. These are the workloads where its high clock speeds and larger L3 cache provide decisive advantages. The R20 wins are the largest margins in the entire comparison, making the Core 9 the go-to choice for anyone running that specific benchmark or similar legacy rendering workloads.

The Core Ultra 7 265 wins the remaining 13 categories, covering Cinebench R15 and R23 (both multicore and single-core), PassMark data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating-point math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and both single-thread tests. Its wins in floating-point math and encryption show a significant edge in scientific and security-related tasks. The find prime numbers result, at 52.6% ahead, points to superior integer arithmetic in certain algorithmic patterns.

The use-case split is straightforward. The Core 9 is for users who prioritize integer math throughput, data compression efficiency, and legacy Cinebench R20 performance. The Ultra 7 is for users who want broader multi-threaded performance, modern Cinebench scores, floating-point capability, and lower power consumption. The bench data consistently favors the Ultra 7 in the majority of tests, but the Core 9’s wins are in areas where it is not merely better — it is overwhelmingly better.